- From: Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:24:31 +0100
- To: "Ian Hickson" <ian@hixie.ch>
- Cc: "Simon Pieters" <zcorpan@gmail.com>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, www-style@w3.org
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:08:47 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Thu, 8 Mar 2007, Steven Pemberton wrote: >> On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 21:10:18 +0100, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >> > > >> > > I don't disagree. But why should <body> be non-magic in XHTML when >> > > it is magic in HTML? >> > >> > The XHTML2 WG asked for it to be. It really is that simple. >> >> Actually, it was exactly the other way round. The CSS WG asked the HTML >> WG for it to be non-magic, and even wrote the text for the spec. See >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/1999JulSep/0011.html >> (member-only link). > > Ah. That'll teach me to believe what I'm told. :-) (My statement above > was based on what I was told after joining the CSSWG in 2000.) > > I guess this means that there is no longer anyone who actually wants to > keep these differences, and we can indeed go ahead with the change. No, no! That was then. Now that this has been in effect for so many years, a change would break all the stylesheets already out there that assume you can address any element in the tree. Anyway, CSS2.1 isn't about changing normative aspects, but getting interoperability. This would not be a good change. Steven Pemberton (Speaking for the XHTML2 WG).
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 16:25:53 UTC